Disagreement Over Stem-Cell Research

Re “Yes to Stem-Cell Research,” editorial, Oct. 3: Not looking further into stem-cell research would be an absolute waste of potential. I can understand that stem-cell research is not a sure thing, but how many times in history did an American take a chance on something and it wound up greatly benefiting our country? You could say that is precisely what America is all about. It is about taking chances because we have the means, luxury and capability to do so. If we don’t take chances, we’ll never know how easy it may have been to cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s or diabetes.

Ivano Fakhoury

Tarzana

*

Your Oct. 3 endorsement of Prop. 71 is badly flawed. First, it ignores the fact that California is broke and broken. It suggests the cost can be justified as infrastructure, comparing it to our past investment in now aging and inadequate roads, schools and water projects. Second, it asserts that California is uniquely qualified to undertake this research -- a conclusion reached without any supporting facts. Finally, it extrapolates from existing success to breakthrough cures, ignoring sincere moral opposition. Any one of these flaws is sufficient to justify “no” on Prop. 71.

Bob and Sue Jordan

Thousand Oaks

*

Since the argument against stem-cell research is that stem cells have life and were created by God, I know that if I were a stem cell, I would be thrilled to be the one to help find a cure for a child’s diabetes, an old person’s Alzheimer’s disease, help the blind to see and the crippled to walk again. In fact, it sounds like something Jesus did when he was on Earth. I am sure that God would want his creation of stem cells to be used compassionately, rather than be tossed out, frozen or killed.

Gladys Roby

Hemet